China, Russia start joint naval exercise

Training exercises are important. Saying that its just training is stupid. I certainly wouldn't read into it to much, but it certainly does mean they
are training for a purpose.. To fight together against someone

originally posted by: lobograndemalo
Training exercises are important. Saying that its just training is stupid. I certainly wouldn't read into it to much, but it certainly does mean they
are training for a purpose.. To fight together against someone

.

the other purpose for military exercises is to maintain proficiency within ones armed forces, in addition to maintain proficiency between the armed
forces of more than once country, to demonstrate capabilities to those who might want to do harm to us and most importantly - to build confidence with
nations that don't trust each other.

It can prevent a mistake from occurring that could lead to war.

military exercises are just as important as the open skies agreement. That program allows over flights of countries with short notice with no
restrictions on what they can view. Its designed to allow nations to answer some of their own questions about a particular country without having to
resort to guessing and by extension, a possible war over a miscalculation / misunderstanding.

originally posted by: MrSpad
It is not that the press supress it, it is simply not a story. China and the US just had joint execersise a couple months ago and will do so again in
June. Before Russias adventure into Crimea the US and Russia had exercises on a regular basis. Outside of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and a few other
places everybody pretty much conducts exercises with everybody. I would expect some possible coverage of China joining in RIMPAC but, only because
that is largets naval exercises on earth and China can see what something like that looks like and the US can see what state the Chinese Navy is in.
They came off looking antiquated in the recent search for the missing plane so I expect they will want to repair that view. A military exercise with
Russia smaller out old fleet is much different than with the US Navy.

I doubt we'll be conducting military exercises with Russia or China anytime soon now. There is a developing economic and military alliance between
them and this is big news. It means that there's a paradigm shift away from western interests, toward the combined territorial and economic interests
of the other two. The US will not be able to stand against that due to the inter-dependencies of global economics. If the US attempts to oppose the
new axis, it will be punished economically and in other ways we perhaps haven't thought of in these posts. No doubt, the State Dept already has a long
list of retaliatory moves that can be taken on all sides. The question is, does the US want to open the Pandora's box and risk retaliatory actions
that could tip the economy into a free fall?

China is joining the US exercise RIMPAC next month for the first time and that thing lasts a month.
Last month China invited the US to military exercises but, the US declines because Japan was not invited. China and Russia have some things in common
and many things not in common. China's clash with Russia close friend Vietnam along with Russia selling advanced weapons to Vietnam and India to be
used against China are just part of the problems between the two. They will deal with each other on certains issues and screw each other over on
others. The one thing they will not do is sacrifice anything for each other. China would not even give Russia backing in the UN over Crimea because
it would damage ties to the US. And while the US is vital to China's economy, Russia is not and as long as that holds true China will never cement
any realshionship with Russia.

My definition of a Sino-Russo alliance doesn't mean they are cementing a close, permanent relationship. My main concern is the accelerated weakening
of the US dollar as a global currency, which is hastened by an official agreement between Russia and China to trade with currencies 'other' than the
dollar. They are doing this to avoid financial loss as the dollar devaluates, due to the mass quantity of dollars being printed and cycled into a
failing economy. If you understand economics, you'll know what that means for Americans. In other words, they (Chinese, Russian economists) see the
writing on the wall and are already counting their losses.

I'm aware of former Sino-Soviet disparities during the cold war and the opposing framework of objectives, which may overlap or conflict, but
historically adversaries often unite against their competitors in ways that are not always obvious to the average person.

Besides the economic alliance against the dollar, my concerns are also related to Russian and Chinese incontrovertible agenda aimed at incursions into
traditionally forbidden territories, such as Eastern Europe (Ukraine) and the South China Sea (Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines). The
complexity of our finances with Russia and China allow them to stretch beyond the limits of diplomacy, and this is a bad sign in political circles.
What we are seeing in the Sino-Russo pact as a flagrant violation of diplomacy and international rules of engagement, began with the US invasion into
Iraq based on fabricated intelligence by the Bush White House.

The Russians and Chinese objected vehemently due to their contracts that involved strategic petroleum projects, pipelines and so forth, which would
have created a renewed petroleum cycle for the Eastern Consortium (namely China and Russia). The US basically grabbed this land (Iraq and Afghanistan)
and its untapped resources from Russia and China, who already had pipelines and other oil development projects in the region. If it helps, I can tell
you that (in February 2003, weeks prior to the Iraq invasion) there was a private conversation with a former NSA analyst familiar with the strategic
concerns of petroleum economics. I was told that petroleum assets were the number one reason for the Iraq invasion and that 911 was the cover story.
This was why Pres. Bush shifted the focus from capturing Bin-laden in Tora Bora (Afghanistan) to the sudden appearance of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq.

You can read into it as you like or reject it all together. The fact is that whatever you are gleaning from public sources really doesn't get to the
matter. The inner workings of the government and what their agendas really entail is a very deep and far reaching scenario entailing plans that cover
decades into the future.

I think what's really being said here, is that America preempted the eastern petroleum consortium (Russia, China) in its long range plans to fulfill
its fuel needs required for industrial expansion.

The equivalent retaliation (tit-for-tat) is being exacted in Russia's land grabs in Crimea and Ukraine, as well as China's preemption on well known
oil deposits off the coast of Vietnam. This is the tip of the iceberg and believe me, every American man, woman and child is going to pay a heavy
economic price for the debts and economic losses coming as the result of incompetent executive politics.

I've never been involved in any training exercises, especially the ones in the Middle East, zAfrica, or
Japan/Korea.

J/k, I've been in several Joint Training Exercises.. I guess the additional stuff you listed could be possible, but in my experience the US always
uses training exercises as a show of force and for real time training. I couldn't imagine that other nations would be any different.

I've never been involved in any training exercises, especially the ones in the Middle East, zAfrica, or
Japan/Korea.

J/k, I've been in several Joint Training Exercises.. I guess the additional stuff you listed could be possible, but in my experience the US always
uses training exercises as a show of force and for real time training. I couldn't imagine that other nations would be any different.

My apologies then. I did not mean to come across as a condescending ass.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.